Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1887-09-22
Sidered.'

| After this review the court says that it
| is apparent that just such an attack was
made on the police in the Haymarket as
! was contemplated and arranged for be-
forehand at the meetings of the interna-
tiona1s and kindred associations, in which
the defendants took part; and that the
| bomb was thrown as had been arranged.
1t holds tn at the jury were warranted in
believing from this evidence that Louis
Lining was a party to the Haymarket
conspira cy, and also that the jury were
| justified in believing from the evidence
| that the man who threw the bomb was
! either a member of the conspiracy, or an
agent employed by it.
As to Engle and Fischer, the court held
that they were chargeable with the crime
| of murder, as they had advised and in
| duced men to enter into a plot to murder
| the police with bombs and pistols in a
| certain contingency, and although they
| were not actually among those who were
present when the bomb was thrown,
they aided, Allotted, advised and en-
| couraged that murder.
The relations of the other defendants
were then considered. The opinion pro-
ceeded to lay stress upon the fact that the
| call for the Haymarket meeting, which
eliminated in the massacre, was printed
| in the English and German languages,
| both upon the same sheet of paper, and
| that the printers employed on the A1better
Zeitung, who usually quit work at five
| O'Clock. were kept busily at work on this
particular Monday night, while five or six
of the employees of the Arbetter Zeitung
were kept at work a long time after the
| hour for closing.
That this circular gave impulse to the
! action of the armed section of the Monday
night meeting, and inspired the adoption
of the plan agreed upon, was apparent
from the fact that it's contents were fully
discussed and dwelt upon at that meeting.
The testimony of Joe Greenhut, at that
time sanitary inspector under the admins
tration of Mayor Harrison, that he was
present in the Office of the Arbeiter Zeatang
while Spies was writing the revenge cir
cular, aud reading the proof sheets of it,
was dwelt upon as unrefutable proof of
the authorship of the circular.
| Turning to the claim of error in en-
paneling the jury, the court held that it
was correct and in accordance with the
plain meaning of the law, which says that
the jury shall be passed upon and ac-
i cepted in panels of four by the parties,
commencing with the plaintiff. Nor from
| a careful examination of the record could
the court see that the remarks of the
| States attorney to the jury were
| marked Dy any Sucn 1IupTODr1SUleS as To
| warrant reversal of the Judgment.
Upon the question as to whether a new
trial should be granted because the court
below refused to grant separate trial to
each of the defendants, the court gives a
distinct negative. This was a matter of
discretion with the court below, and the
point had been decided again and again.
Particular attention was given to the
| case of Fielden, the only Englishman
among the condemned men, and who
claimed that he was present at
the meeting only by acct
deut, having had an engagement
to address meeting of strikers in another
part of the city upon that fatal night
The court held that if. claimed, there was
strong bias against him on the part of the
policeman testifying for the State there
was equally strong bias on the part of the
witnesses that gave evidence in his favor
The turbulences of the crowd in the
Haymarket, the incendiary references tt
: capitalists in general and to Jay Gould il
particular, were dwelt upon as indicating
the Interior objects that Spies, Parsons
and their associates had in view, and
there are copious extracts from the
speeches delivered upon the memorable oc.
casion to prove that those responsible fol
the gathering had but one idea, and thai
to incite their hearers to violence.
rncendiary utterances in the two
Anarchist papers We're quoted at length
| and the fact commented upon that these
were the organs of the Internationals, and
that the members looked to these papers
for orders and directions. 1t is held that
the jury were at liberty to use these pub
licatious, in connection with other facts.